Omaha World-Herald, February 9, 1999
"Life Without Parole Is Workable"

By Carter Van Pelt, State Coordinator of Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty

Pope John Paul II recently has taken a high profile, unqualified position of opposition to the death penalty. He has asserted that "given the means at the state’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it... public authority should limit itself to such means."

Skeptics have raised the legitimate question of whether or not life without parole is a truly realizable alternative to capital punishment.

The current legislation that would repeal the death penalty in Nebraska, LB 76, would replace execution with "life without the possibility of parole and an order of restitution" to the estate of the victim. LB76 is not a constitutional amendment to remove the power of the governor, secretary of state and attorney general to commute sentences, nor does it need to be.

It is clear that when the public demands that murderers not be paroled, they are not paroled. Since the death penalty was officially reinstated in Nebraska on April 20, 1973, there have been 185 persons convicted of first-degree murder (premeditated or felony murder) who were eligible for the death penalty or life in prison. Of those 185 persons convicted of first-degree murder (premeditated or felony murder) who were eligible for the death penalty or life in prison. Of those 185, a total of 24 have received death sentences. Of the 24 individuals sentenced to death, nine remain on death row, and three have been executed.

Of the nearly 160 life sentences given for murders committed since April of 1973, four have been commuted to a certain number of years by the constitutional authority of the Board of Pardons, thus creating parole eligibility. Three of the four have been discharged in recent years. Notably, the four individuals whose sentences were commuted were convicted of felony murder, a legal category of first-degree murder currently being considered for repeal. Also of note, none of the three discharged have committed crimes since their release.

If the death penalty were replaced with "life without possibility of parole," those who currently receive the death penalty would never walk free again. Why is this a certainty if the Board of Pardons retains its authority to commute sentences?

LB 76 retains the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances currently used by decide who receives the death penalty. If the death penalty were repealed, a convicted murderer would still be designated such that it would be crystal clear to the Board of Pardons that he or she has no claim to commutation whatsoever. The legislation states that "a person so sentenced shall not under any circumstances whatsoever be paroled."

The Nebraska Constitution gives the governor, secretary of state and attorney general alone the power to commute sentences. They make their decisions on commutations requests with the conscious consideration of public will. It is unimaginable that the citizens of Nebraska would ever elect constitutional officers who would commute the life sentence of someone clearly unfit to ever walk free. And as a matter of record, they haven’t.

There have been no commutations of life sentences since 1990. The likelihood of any life sentence commutations under the present Board of Pardons is nonexistent. With life sentences, Nebraska continues to be a safe place to life. The public is no safer for having executed three of 185 death-eligible individuals in the last 25 years. The death penalty obviously does not contribute to public safety. It never has and never will.

The last time the issue of abolition of the death penalty was considered by the full Legislature (1992), the proposed alternative to death included a mandatory minimum 30-year sentence. As stated, this is not the case with the legislation currently proposed. For this reason alone, the current death penalty repeal measure deserves consideration by the full Legislature.

While the death penalty may appear to be superficially popular in Nebraska, the proposed alternative is rational, effective and in the best interests of Nebraskans who want safe communities.